Comments:Martin 226 compares the Jpn. form with Kor. pagɨl-, but PA *-g- could not have been preserved in Korean. The latter should be rather derived from PA *p`ó[k]u 'swell' q. v.
Comments:Despite Poppe 75, the Tungus root has nothing to do with Mong. bulga 'confusion, uprise' (a probable Turkic loanword, see under *bŭ́li). Cf. *bŭ̀ĺo.
Comments:Poppe 35, 73. An onomatopaeic root, but widely represented and (except for secondary fronting *būŋi- > *būni- in TM) with quite regular correspondences.
Comments:A Western isogloss. Initial ǯ- in Mong. is irregular (one should expect either *deɣe-ken or *čiɣe-ken: cf. in this respect the interesting WMong. form čöge-büri ( < *čiɣö-büri ?) 'jackal'); this may be due to an interaction with Turk. *jēbke (see under *zīpe-kV).
Comments:АПиПЯЯ 13, 77, 288, Дыбо 10. Jpn. and / or Kor. can be also compared with TM *čuru- 'willow, poplar' (ТМС 2, 417); this could explain the tonal discrepancy between Jpn. and Kor.
Comments:Cf. *ńam(ń)ekt`V (partial contaminations were possible). WMong. ǯamur 'fruit of sweet-briar (eglantine)' (L 1033) is most probably a Manchu loanword.
Comments:One of the suffixed forms - *čā̀ma-rV- (TM *ǯāmV-ra-) or *čā̀ma-lV- (Mong. *dam-la-) may be reflected in PJ *tàmià-ra-; the diphthong -ia- ( ~ -ai-) may, however, suggest a more complex origin of the Japanese form.
Comments:Gombocz 1905, 278, KW 73, Владимирцов 319. Mong. is hardly < Turk., despite Щербак 1997, 153. Jpn. *tǝkǝ- < *takǝ because of the incompatibility of *a and *ǝ in PJ.
Comments:KW 444, Владимирцов 183, Poppe 16 (Turk.-Mong.). A Western isogloss. The root was originally verbal (cf. PT); Mong. and TM reflect a velar derivative *čḕlV-gV. Despite Doerfer's (TMN 2, 554) criticism the comparison still seems valid (although the narrowing *e > i in PT is not quite clear). Miller (1985b, 207) cites a MJ tir- 'cut in narrow strips' which would be a nice match, but we were unable to identify the source of the word.
